Dear Editor:
At a recent public meeting, Councilwoman Mason presented her “concept plan” for the northernmost section of Hoboken. She advised that Hoboken is the second most visited city in NJ and sketched out ideas for the kind of development we might consider in that area of town to reinforce our status as a “destination” city. The concept included the now infamous baseball field, pedestrian promenades, movie theatre, retail, convention center, ice rink, sports fields and park space where two overpasses leading traffic to the tunnel might be flattened and burrowed into the marshlands as underground passageways, a dazzling array of distractions. “Think South Beach or Sedona” was the analogy suggested.
Ms. Mason presented the plan as a “starting” point for discussion. This starting point has expanded from 8 to 19 to 25 blocks and every inch is packed with entertainment and distraction. We were told that to realize this cornucopia, our very own Never Land, developers might insist on including taller buildings in exchange for these ‘give-backs.’ And, as is always the case, redevelopment, as a “possibility” took a seat at the table. Some may applaud the “destination city” plan as a positive step away from traditional residential development, I spent most of the meeting thinking about Venice.
I love Venice. It’s one of my favorite cities; one of the world’s most popular “destinations.” It’s small and contained by water. It’s a city where residents know each other; a place that’s frequently challenged by flooding. In these small ways it reminds me, just a bit, of Hoboken. A couple of years ago, while on an assignment in Venice, I asked the local workers if they knew that they lived in a wonderful place. They responded unequivocally “yes.” They took pride in their city. One might say “civic pride,” something Councilwoman Mason believes can be reinforced here with appropriate development.
So why did I find this concept disturbing? Put simply, I didn’t move to a tourist spot.
What makes Venice a wonderful place (something the development mentality ignores) has nothing to do with crowding development into a finite space and everything to do with preserving history. There’s nothing contrived about Venice and yet thousands of people are drawn to Venice every year. Visiting Venice is visiting history from its winding pedestrian corridors to marvelously maintained architecture and cobble stone streets. Hoboken also has a proud history, and while much of our architectural history is lost, there are still things that should be preserved.
The industrially zoned northern section may be viewed as unattractive, and as generating unacceptably low taxes, hardly comparable to Venice. However, before we cram one of the few undeveloped sections of town with our version of Disney World, we must consider that there’s good reason for low rise industrial zoning on Hoboken’s periphery – the additional crowding, traffic, and flooding will not only diminish our quality of life, but increase our taxes. We needn’t view development as both inevitable and necessary (indeed, our zoning law is intended to protect us from the abuses of overdevelopment), nor concern ourselves with increasing developers’ profits. The best ‘concept’ may be to preserve what little history, and quality of life, remains.
Cheryl Fallick